Walking the Labyrinth: Considering Mental Health Consumer Experience, Meaning Making, and the Illumination of the Sacred in a Forensic Mental Health Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the unique meaning and experience associated with walking a unicursal seven circuit outdoor Chartress Labyrinth and 11 circuit indoor Chartress Labyrinth for persons residing at a forensic mental health care facility. Over the past several decades labyrinths have enjoyed something of a renaissance and are often utilized by spiritual care practitioners and health care clinicians in order to support reflection, stress reduction, and the exploration of personal wellness in a sacred setting. Labyrinths are used in many settings including places of worship, hospitals, long-term care facilities, and parks. While labyrinths are becoming more prevalent, an understanding of their impact, particularly in the mental health context, is limited. This qualitative study supports a novel investigation of the meaning associated with participation in walking a labyrinth for persons residing at a forensic mental health care facility. The study design is a qualitative methodology involving transcribed interviews with 12 individuals resident at the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care who participated in the 'Walking the Labyrinth' program as facilitated by spiritual care staff. A standardized interview protocol was utilized and the collected data was coded for themes. Several methods were employed to establish trustworthiness including triangulation by analyst and by theory/perspective. Member checking was also utilized in order to further validate the themes. Recommendations related to potential health care applications for labyrinths are identified. These include a focus upon the linkage between mental health care planning and labyrinth participation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".